Loading ITAT cases…
882 orders · Page 14 of 18
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing cash deposits by relying on prior withdrawals and in allowing fixed deposits after verifying sources. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute long-term capital gains by linking indexation with the payment schedule.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order needs no interference. Regarding Ground No. 1 (Lower GP), the Tribunal noted the NFAC's finding that the AO did not provide GP details and the basis for applying the 21% GP rate. The NFAC also observed that no adjustments were made in earlier years and that the AO's estimation was not tenable. The Tribunal agreed that the addition of Rs. 14,28,495/- was not sustainable and was correctly deleted. For Ground No. 2 (Bogus Creditors), the Tribunal observed the NFAC's findings that certain creditors' accounts were squared up in subsequent years, and some outstanding liabilities were offered as income under Section 41(1). The NFAC also noted that payments to four foreign creditors were made via banking channels with RBI approval, supported by purchase vouchers and corresponding sales, which the AO had not negated. The Tribunal found that the NFAC correctly considered these facts and deleted the additions related to these creditors. However, the NFAC sustained additions for Pylon Traders, K.S. Consumer Product, and Karuna Industries, totaling Rs. 2,086,671/-, as the assessee did not sufficiently explain their genuineness. For Ground No. 3 (Interest to Partner), the Revenue did not make any submissions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the cost allocation based on the headcount ratio should not be disturbed, as it aligns with judicial precedents and the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also allowed an additional ground for depreciation on intangible assets, following its own prior ruling.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim for share issue expenses as revenue, following ITAT's own case precedents. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s treatment of excise duty subsidy as a capital receipt, citing various High Court and ITAT judgments.
The Tribunal held that the registration certificates under Section 12A(a) and 80G were statutory orders not requiring extensive scrutiny. The Tribunal found that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, while granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit further evidence, would serve the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the registration certificates under Section 12A(a) and 80G were statutory orders not requiring extensive scrutiny. The Tribunal found that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, while granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit further evidence, would serve the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer raised no objection to the withdrawal and granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the addition for lower GP was not sustainable as the AO did not provide sufficient details. Regarding bogus creditors, the Tribunal partly deleted additions based on subsequent payments and offering to income, but sustained additions for some creditors where genuineness was not established.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the assessee had opted to settle the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the scheme application failed to mature.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 12,10,000 and Rs. 5,50,000 to the Assessing Officer for verification. The additions of Rs. 42,00,000 and Rs. 16,30,000 were sustained based on the assessee's unequivocal submissions.
The Tribunal held that the transactions involving VKG were accommodation entries arranged through banking channels, not genuine loans. The assessee acted as a conduit, and the funds belonged to MPG Business Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the addition on this account was deleted. However, the addition related to a portion of the unexplained credit (Rs. 1,60,50,000) was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The issues of FDR interest and Section 14A disallowance were found to have been duly examined by the AO during original assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim for treating share issue expenses as revenue, following a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s treatment of excise duty subsidy as a capital receipt.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure claimed in P&L account was for business purposes and that the specific interest expenditure of Rs. 3,11,520/- related to loans for property investments was not debited to the P&L account.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of the issue being previously adjudicated was based on a misunderstanding of the prior order, which dealt with revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 and not the merits of agricultural income. The Tribunal also noted the lack of representation before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and disturbing the declared GP rate, especially since the assessee had explained the reasons for losses and the bank had obtained a due diligence report supporting these reasons. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that TDS deduction does not automatically confirm income collectability, especially when the income was ultimately written off as uncollectable. Therefore, the addition of the full amount was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the legal issue raised was covered by previous decisions of the coordinate bench. It observed that the approval under Section 153D was granted for multiple assessees and assessment years without proper perusal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Senior DR had no objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to revive it if the settlement scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were a nullity due to the absence of valid service of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had died on 23.04.2017, while the notice under Section 148 was dated 30.03.2017. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the postal address used in the notice by the AO was different from the correct postal address of the assessee as per the death certificate and the assessment order. In the absence of recording the correct postal address, the Tribunal held that there could be no presumption of service of notice. The Tribunal placed reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT vs Chetan Gupta, which held that the issue and service of notice under Section 148 are jurisdictional requirements and the onus is on the Revenue to show proper service, which it failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 89,75,000/-. The Tribunal refrained from dealing with the factual aspects of the case, including whether the land was a capital asset or the charging of interest, as the primary issue of jurisdiction was decided against the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of foreign exchange difference and server hosting charges were made on an ad hoc basis and required further examination. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that investment in shares is a capital transaction and not income. Relying on High Court decisions, it was held that the source of the source was not required to be established for investments from a foreign parent company, especially when sourced from a venture capital.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing cash deposits by relying on prior withdrawals and in allowing fixed deposits after verifying sources. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute long-term capital gains by linking indexation with the payment schedule.
The Tribunal held that additions made for the former four assessment years were not strictly based on specific seized material, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The department's cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking substance. The assessee's last appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that additions made for the former four assessment years were not strictly based on specific seized material, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The department's cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking substance. The assessee's last appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that additions made for the former four assessment years were not strictly based on specific seized material, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The department's cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking substance. The assessee's last appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the receipts were not fees for technical services, distinguishing between a 'service provided' and a 'facility offered'. The lower authorities erred in treating the impugned receipts as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee was not business income as there was no substantial economic connection or a "business in" India. The nature of the transaction was considered passive income, not FTS as defined.
The Tribunal held that additions made for the former four assessment years were not strictly based on specific seized material, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The department's cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking substance. The assessee's last appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps at various levels in such instances. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide the appellant with three effective opportunities of hearing, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in treating the offshore supplies revenue as taxable in India. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it concluded that offshore supply revenue cannot be taxed in India, and consequently, Section 44BBB would not apply.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system and the assessee's absence. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify the limb of Section 270A under which the penalty was being levied. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Delhi High Court and ITAT, which held that a vague penalty notice is fatal to the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as the AO's decision was based on Supreme Court rulings affirming that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37). The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on other High Court decisions misplaced, especially when a Supreme Court decision affirming the assessee's position was not brought to the lower court's notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from investments with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act, respectfully following various High Court and Tribunal decisions. The disallowance of business expenses was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the expenditure, which was not part of the 'limited' scrutiny, was beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction. The Tribunal's finding was supported by CBDT instructions and judicial precedents, which emphasize adherence to the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the instant case was a 'duplicate' appeal and that an earlier coordinate bench had already restored the Section 143(1) appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. To maintain judicial consistency and avoid contradictory findings, the Tribunal decided to accept the assessee's instant appeal and send it back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that accepting the sales and profits thereon taxed by the AO means that cash deposits representing sales realization cannot be added again, as it leads to double taxation. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash deposit, while the remaining amount was deleted. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the appeal. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground, citing the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), which allows the Tribunal to entertain additional grounds if all relevant facts are on record. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the contents of the AO's show-cause notice. Relying on the Delhi High Court decisions in PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.), the Tribunal held that the AO's failure to specify the corresponding limb in the penalty show-cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, all other pleadings on merit were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee received a cash gift of Rs.2 lakhs from her sister-in-law, which falls under the exempt category of relatives under section 56(2) of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs.2 lakhs was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority was mechanical and unrebutted by the department. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal held that a debatable issue requiring supportive evidence could not be summarily disallowed under Section 143(1). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee concerning the validity of penalty proceedings due to the show-cause notice not specifying the specific limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Citing landmark judgments, the Tribunal held that such a failure vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act was invalid. This was based on the finding that the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical, as evidenced by the endorsement "yes, it is a fit case…". The Tribunal noted that this crucial fact of mechanical approval went unrebutted by the department. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the assessment. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were rendered infructuous and deleted, as they were consequential to the assessment which had been quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed.